Thank you for your comments, Pat.

Building a supermajority by definition means members from very diverse backgrounds.

How much more can the Democratic Party be degraded when it is held in thrall by Joe Lieberman?

There are, however, rays of hope with one from - who else? - the exemplar of the audacity of hope - President Barack Obama who informed us via "60 Minutes" that he wasn't elected to take care of the "fat cats" of Wall Street who lined his presidential campaign coffers.

The other piece of thrilling news is that Ron Wyden has let it be known he is firmly entrenched in the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party.

Yeah, right!!!

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/12/the_public_option_died_last.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

EJ Dionne column saying the public option died during the summer.

The Health Care Industrial Complex and their lackeys in Congress have destroyed health care reform. Anything that passes now is certain to be nothing more than a little extra Christmas gift for the industry in the form of more government money, unlimited pricing on insurance and, God help us, an individual mandate to buy a product with no price controls.

Wyden on health care: "Progressives, let's keep fighting our own party! We could never exist on our own! Better to stay in the herd and let corporate Amerika call the shots.

You know what separates you from Lieberman? Balls. That's bearing in mind that Lieberman has zero redeeming qualities.

Not to worry, Wyden. The Democratic faithful will still vote for you no matter how much you and your buddy Joe the insurance company agent piss on them.

LT wrote:

Building a supermajority by definition means members from very diverse backgrounds.

Perhaps more accurately, building a supermajority by definition means members beholden to diverse interest groups. In this case, insurance companies, many of which are headquartered in Connecticut [Lieberman] and Nebraska [Nelson] are the relevant special interests.

But let's be fair and candid. There was a great performance - The People Speak - featuring Howard Zinn on the History Channel on Sunday evening citing events in American history when progress was made in the lives of ordinary people by the people standing up and demanding that the government do what is right. Until enough people develop the intelligence and character to demand of the White House and the Congress that they deliver civilized and humane policies, then "We, the People" have to accept part of the blame.

That will require, among other things, that Democrats and Republicans abandon their habits of tribal loyalty that enable politicians to get away with the contempt they show the people.

As for the health care plans working their way through Congress with each passing day it appears more likely any reform will be worse than what we have now - except for the insurance industry that will insist at least on maintaining the status quo if they can't rig something to improve their bottom line.

Wyden has been all over the map on public health care reform for years. He's been out and out opposed to a public option the past year in favor of his tax-based legislation. The only thing Wyden has going for him is he remembers to call himself a "progressive" which sends some of you into a state of euphoria I suppose.

If Wyden is in favor of allowing states to develop their own public option buy-in, why not expand the state-run OHP from a low-income, lottery based system, to a full-blown public option for the state of Oregon? You "progressives" could even get a measure on the ballot to increase property taxes in order to help subsidize the costs of expanding the OHP as a low-cost state run option for all Oregonians. You might even get it passed.

Disclaimer: I am not a "progressive". I am a conservative liberal democrat.

Obama/Emanuel ought to dig in the heels and say "Hell, No!", and just live without passing anything. And speechify as to how they didn't want to sign a bad deal.

But probably Obama agrees with Holy Joe, and, most certainly, Emanuel totally agrees with Holy Joe, so it ain't gonna happen.

They have more important things to attend to. You look at the complexity of the legislation, and if you're Nelson, you say, "you know what that needs? A Senate version of 'Stupak'"!

Pat's take is interesting. We agree on the characterization of the Senate. This is the part that a lot of progressives don't get about Dems, though. Why look for the miracle operator, instead of saying that we aren't going to go on with business as usual until it's fixed? Unrealistic? Seems just as unrealistic to us that you'll get anything valuable done with the limitations. At the end of the day it's simply more of you than us.

Policy seems to be a lot like chess. The way you are perceived seems to be largely a function of how many moves you look ahead. As long as we have a non-parliamentary gov and suffer from the tyranny of the majority, everything more than a few moves ahead will be perceived as unrealistic, undo-able, and an esoteric strategy favored by a few intellectual elite.

It's hard for me to get motivated about history's verdict being, "and though they were a corrupt and decadent empire, slowly eroding the freedoms of all abroad and at home, Democratic administrations in the early 21st century passed some very progressive legislation, despite the dysfunctional state of the Congress". It will no doubt go on to ponder how Dems didn't see the set-up with Pelosi and Reid, being implemented immediately before gaining power. "Just in case these newly elected progressives think they're going to get something done..."

Harry Reid definitely has earned the mantle of "Deflector of Liberal Erections". When they come up, he beats 'em down!

The nihilists who want to kill this bill because it doesn't fit their ideology are people like Howard Dean who never have to worry themselves about their access to health care. My 58 year old sister in law's life depends on this bill passing. She will have no health insurance and no treatment for her cancer if it doesn't. Ron Wyden is right, a foundation is better than nothing. And ashes, death, and recrimination is all we will get if it fails this time. And another generation of right wing control of Congress and the presidency, imposing 45,000 more dead from lack of health insurance every year is what we'll get. Is Rachel Maddow going to go without? Is Howard Dean going without? Is Raul Grijalva going without? I don't think so.

"The nihilists who want to kill this bill because it doesn't fit their ideology are people like Howard Dean who never have to worry themselves about their access to health care."

This is a fair argument, but there is another side. If there are ten people who are seriously ill just now and this bill will save two it would be tough to scrap the bill and sacrifice those lives; however, if we have to wait ten years for an improvement while another ten people become seriously ill each year with only a couple receiving care that will mean 80 people go without over the decade. If, on the other hand, we fight for a bill that covers everybody in, say, four years, that means we have sacrificed eight people in the near term to save 60 later on. Again, this is a judgment call. If it were a family member of mine I would go for the quick fix as most others would do, but I believe a fair and impartial judge would go for the best overall solution.

In any event, Congress and the White House have failed on this issue - and so have the people. And this will continue to be the case until a NON-partisan panel is invoked to develop a national health care system that compares favorably with France and Italy, the top two on the World Health Organization Year 2000 report.

I suppose this is about the time we are to be reminded that we are wrong, that Obama is playing chess when others are playing checkers. I suppose the same is so with Wyden. One day the pawns will rise up...

There will be a vote in the Senate today on Bernie Sanders' single-payer proposal. Contact Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley to ask for their support.

Bill B., your words are frightening and probably prophetic:

Until enough people develop the intelligence and character to demand of the White House and the Congress that they deliver civilized and humane policies, then "We, the People" have to accept part of the blame.

Perhaps those favoring meaningful health care reform could purchase advertising time to promote their beliefs during "American Idol", because from what I can tell, 86% of the electorate relies on that program for their current news, public affairs programing and day-to-day living advice.

WWSCD?

(What Would Simon Cowell Do)?

If we can get 80 votes in the Senate and 400 votes in the House, then we'll be able to pass a piece of shit bill that will only kill and maim tens of thousands. And we'll be able to get an "exit strategy", too.

So come on, "progressives"! Donate more money to the party. And when these trolls start to complain, give more money still. (What ever happened to that plan?)

A Health Insurance Reform Bill that does not contain either a strong robust public option available for everyone or strong price controls on insurance companies is not a reform bill. If the Senate Democrats cannot pass a reform bill that actually reforms the health insurance market place they should not pass a bill.

The current “Health Care” bill before the Senate does not contain any meaningful reforms. Yes, it does prohibit Health Insurance Companies to refuse coverage due to pre-existing conditions but it does not limit what they can charge in premiums. So instead of not being able get insurance because of your health conditions, you will just not be able to afford it. But thanks to the mandate you will have to pay it or go to jail.

The insurance company can still cancel your policy if they can find any error or omission in your application, because an inaccurate application is fraud. They still can cap the amount of health care they will pay for annually. The Insurance Companies can still met to price set and apportion out market segments between themselves.

Then there is the mandate, you must have Health Insurance regardless of cost or lack of coverage or you will go to jail. It doesn’t matter if you can afford it or not you must pay.

This is not reform.

This bill needs to be defeated. And all support for any Democratic Member of Congress that votes for it needs to be withdrawn, and a real progressive needs to be run against him or her.

I am coming to see the accuracy of Emma Goldman's assertion, "If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal."

So I blame myself for being taken in by Obama's frisson of "Not this time!" and "Change we can believe in!" What was I thinking? Well, I was half-blinded by the exultation of having a person of color in the White House, and likewise half-blinded by the relief of having the Bush usurpers outta there. Still, when others here taunt the left and say, "What were you expecting?" I have to admit that I personally have the ridicule coming to me.

So the question is: what do you do when you know that elections mean more or less nothing? What do you do when (to take a relevant local example) we "elect" clowns like Ron Wyden who takes millions of dollars from the insurance companies and who then, after the EPIC FAIL OF THE AGES in which he has played no small part, ducks into a quick shower and makes some speech about, well friends, we lost this one, but we'll get 'em next time.

I mean, what do you say to that kind of staggering hypocrisy?

And how do you converse with self-identified "progressives" who take this discourse seriously?

Remember when it was "single payer is off the table?" Why didn't we march on Washington and say: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, the hell it's off the table! Not one dime for any Democratic politician, not a nickel for the party until this gets done, and we're at your local houses day and night with sick people and in your face with sick children and yo, it's General Strike time.

What were we thinking? It's like we've forgotten how to do this.

We coulda been a contender. Instead of a bum. Which is what we are. We are toast, and rightly so.

"Again, this is a judgment call. If it were a family member of mine I would go for the quick fix as most others would do, ..."

At the same time I would be hoping other family members would be spared some illness for which they didn't have coverage having been left out of this piece of crap Congress is foisting off on the public.

A few months ago I had a discussion with a couple of friends about whether to work for change within our outside the Democratic Party. My opinion was we need both people within and outside the party. No more. Anyone remaining in the party is more likely to be an enabler than a reformer.

Let's imagine you work for the health care insurance industry (meaning you don't know the difference between right and wrong or you have no conscience whatsoever) and you don't want successful reform in Congress. What would you do? How about nominating four or five groups of politicians that you have invested campaign finance in and have them all come up with different plans that create confusion? Then for good measure get other lackeys to oppose anything the "reformers" come up with. Do you think that would work? Sound familiar?

as usual, darrelplant speaks for me

Did you just see him on Countdown? Epic fail. Wow.

Seems to me that Medicare expansion could be done as a separate bill through reconciliation. This could be started now, perhaps under the guise of "fixing" the funding "problem". Pass the present Lieberman/Snow-approved bill for the insurance reforms. In combination, overall it could be a good package. Try to convince the "liberal" and "progressive" voters to stop crying and not take their ball and go home, but instead help elect decent senators in Ohio, New Hampshire, and Missouri next year, or if they feel really negative, go to Arkansas and work for Blanche Lincoln's republican opponent (an equally worthy task in the overall long-term scheme of things). Lose 1, gain 3, kick Lieberman out.

What we are going to get in the end from the senate and house bills:

30 million uninsured forced by mandate to purchase insurance or be subject to incarceration and fines.

A "high-risk pool" category of insurance offerings for people with pre-existing conditions, partially funded by taxpayer dollars.

No ability to import less-expensive, generic or non-generic prescription drugs from Canada or elsewhere.

A deal made between Obama and drug companies to lower the prices (slightly) on brand-name (patented) medications. As Henry Waxman already pointed out, this year alone the cost of prescription brand-name drugs has risen 9%, and "estimated it would boost drug company revenues by $20 billion this year, undercutting the industry's promise to provide $80 billion of savings over 10 years".

As someone above stated: Epic fail. Wow.

The jist of the arguments here are that if I can't have what I want, what meets my ideological requirements, I will try to kill any opportunity for someone else to live or have what they need to live. Those who call themselves progressive are the worst enemies of progressive values, using divisive, elitist, and effete tactics and arguments. Wyden and people in power do well to keep you all at a distance.

Bottom line: Whatever comes out of Congress on health care will first take care of the insurance corporations that pay for members' re-election campaigns. As for the people, they will get the crumbs.

Why can't we duplicate the best of the European, Japanese and Taiwanese health care programs? Because that would cost the "health care" industry complex loads of money and not enough people will demand better of their so-called elected representatives who don't represent the people.

And another generation of right wing control of Congress and the presidency, imposing 45,000 more dead from lack of health insurance every year is what we'll get.

This just in: "The Centers for Disease Control Has Declared the Lieberman Variant of the Democratic Malaise Endemic in the US; Warns 45,000 May Die Next Year Alone!"

Lieberman doesn't oppose the aspects of the bill that will provide insurance for the uninsured. That is a misinformed and reactionary belief from people who don't actually listen. No one in the senate is opposing Nancy Pelosi's house bill requiring all people regardless of income to purchase under penalty of law private health insurance. Not even Lieberman. Lieberman's opposition was to a public option, run by the federal government that would increase the deficit and still be unaffordable to many low-income families.

Yeah, Ricky, it's our own fault. What few discuss in this debate is that there are a lot of folks that are going to look at what is going to basically be the same coverage/rates available today, now available to individuals, and say, "no thanks".

If it comes to more than 10% of my monthly expenses (the premium), I would prefer to carry none and die. We could have had single payer, but Obama took it off the table. We could have reset the balance between the private health care industry and consumers, but we're essentially getting the gov as a new partner with the existing companies and the way they do business.

Real progressives are saying that it is a sham, and they aren't interested. You must have liked Nixon. His approach was always such that, if you were drowning 50 feet from shore, he'd throw you a life preserver on a 30 foot line, and have Kissinger issue a statement that "the President met you more than half way". That's exactly what Lieberman is doing, which, you are correct, is very different from nothing. Will it stop one from drowning? Only if you can paddle hard to get to what they've decided to dole out. Which is why you're right and it's our fault. I'd rather drown.

@ Zara

The debate became lost on me when Pelosi mandated Americans must purchase health insurance or face penalties. A huge plus for the private sector insurance corporations. That is the point in time I threw my hands up in the air and stopped caring. If "progressives" in Oregon were serious about reforming health care and provide insurance to all, at least in the backyard, they would somehow expand the Oregon Health Plan to allow all citizens to opt-in at an affordable rate. Obama threw the life preserver line out with enough line-footage during the campaign, but has been slowly reeling it in after the election. Everyone still drowns. Unforgivable.

A good bet: Whatever comes out of Congress will be the equivalent of a "lemon" from old Detroit.

The long knives come out courtesy of Howard Dean. I earlier misjudged this man's influence. The kook fringe is on FIRE with this assault on Reid/Obama Care from the LEFT! What a brilliant framing of the issue ...

Howard Dean: Health Care Bill 'Bigger Bailout for Insurance Industry Than AIG' - ABC News

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/HealthCare/howard-dean-health-care-bill-bigger-bailout-insurance/story?id=9349392

But, as they say on television sales pitchers, there's more:

"Enjoy the health care debate? Wait until the Senate takes on the big banks. It already looks like déjà vu all over again. Democrats, bloodied from self-inflicted wounds in the health care debate, may well commit seppuku over financial reform.

'The script is in place for a failed sequel."

Curbing Big Banks: Draw the Damn Line

Re: "I mean, what do you say to that kind of staggering hypocrisy?"

There are plenty of good cliches lying around:

"Obama is just playing chess and he's ten moves ahead of you."

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

"We need to get the backs of our progressive leaders, who just lack backbone."

"We need to give Obama more time. It's just his first term."

"Our DP leaders may be bad, but they're much better than Republicans."

"It's Nader's fault."

Agreed, Ricky. How bad is the performance when a conservative liberal and a radical liberal see the same talking points?

'The script is in place for a failed sequel."

Jackass II.

Posted by: Master of the Cliche | Dec 16, 2009 2:44:21 PM "Obama is just playing chess and he's ten moves ahead of you."

Oh, but he is! The key is the word "you". Are we directly involved in policy? But we are directly involved in keeping them in power.

He's playing footsie with the status quo. The chess he's playing is with us.

That said, it could be worse. Really. I was prepared a year ago to write him off as such, but, now, actually see some reason to give him a bit more time on some issues he might actually be doing well on. I'm actually surprised that I would have that assessment after a year, so, I have to think it could be worse.

No doubt, by next year at this time, it will be. Call me guardedly pessimistic.

"It's Nader's fault."

It is. If he cared about this country he would be President.

More like if the country cared about this...

Meanwhile, the WSJ has the true measure of the Dem pulse, and it's pretty weak.

Senate Democratic leaders Wednesday failed in a last-ditch effort to pass a short-term extension to override the tax's expiration, a process put into motion during the Bush administration. That virtually ensures that the tax will disappear Jan. 1.

Particularly outrageous in the events of Terrible Tuesday was what happened AFTER Obama had the meeting with the Senate Dem Caucus +2: on the vote on Dorgen's amendment to allow for re-importation of medications from Canada, a full THIRTY Dem U.S. Senators voted to keep your drug prices outrageous.

I believe Obama wielded some influence as regards this disgusting result.

This is a good commentary on the whole health care situation

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

A class act:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121803506.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Health reform is vital, I work with online drugstore, in which there are generics and brands that customers often complain that their banks do not allow payment! Why this control?

great topic to discuss. i hope it will help to create awareness among people